Request By:
Mr. Pat N. Miller
Executive Secretary
Kentucky Teachers' Retirement System
216 West Main Street
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; John F. Zink, Assistant Attorney General
Re: Opinion Request KRS 161.661(1)
As the Executive Secretary of the Kentucky Teachers' Retirement System you have requested an opinion on the application of KRS 161.661(1) regarding member eligibility for disability retirement. Your question deals specifically with the case of Mr. William A. Kelley who was terminated from his teaching position with the Monticello Independent School System during the 1975-76 school year. For purposes of this opinion, I will assume that Mr. Kelley was terminated as of June, 1976. Mr. Kelley challenged his termination in court and as a result made the determination not to apply for disability retirement until sometime in 1978, after a court determination that his suit against the school system was without merit.
In answering your question, it is necessary to examine the applicable language of KRS 161.661(1) wherein it is provided:
(1) Any member who has completed five or more years of accredited service in the public schools of Kentucky after July 1, 1941, may retire for disability and be granted a disability allowance if found to be eligible as provided below. Application for disability benefits must be made within one (1) year of the last contributing service in Kentucky. . . . (Emphasis added).
In OAG 70-476, KRS 161.661(1) was examined regarding a similar question wherein the opinion of this office was that the statute imposed no limitation on when the application can be made. However, the statute in question has been substantially amended such that OAG 70-476 is no longer applicable. The present statute was amended so as to now clearly require that applications for disability benefits be made within one (1) year of the last contributing service in Kentucky.
From the facts which your letter has presented to me, it would seem that Mr. Kelley would have had to apply for disability benefits at the latest by June 30, 1977. While Mr. Kelley urges the extenuating circumstances of his law suit with his former employer as a basis of avoidance of the requirement of KRS 161.661(1), the clear language of the statute can not be circumvented. It would appear that Mr. Kelley consciously chose not to comply with the statute, and instead proceeded with his attempt to regain his employment. I can not see any room in the statute to ignore the one year time limitation requirement. As such, it is the opinion of this office that Mr. Kelley would not be eligible for disability benefits based upon the language of KRS 161.661(1).